|
COMMON
SENSE
by Thomas
Paine
INTRODUCTION
PERHAPS
the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently
fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking
a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises
at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides.
Time makes more converts than reason.
As a long
and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right
of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought
of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the
king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament
in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously
oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire
into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of
either.
In the
following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which
is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals
make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of
a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly,
will cease of themselves, unless too much pains is bestowed upon their
conversion.
The cause
of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances
have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through
which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the
event of which, their affections are interested. The laying a country
desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights
of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of
the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power
of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is
THE AUTHOR.
Philadelphia,
Feb. 14, 1776.
OF THE
ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL. WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON
THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION
SOME writers
have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction
between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different
origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;
the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections,
the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,
the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society
in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is
but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we
suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we
might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened
by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government,
like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built
on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience
clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver;
but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part
of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this
he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises
him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the
true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever
form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense
and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order
to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let
us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part
of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the
first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural
liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will
excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants,
and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged
to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the
same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling
in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period
of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber
he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the
mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call
him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for
though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living,
and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than
to die.
Thus necessity,
like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants
into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and
render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained
perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable
to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount
the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common
cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other;
and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some
form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient
tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the
whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more
than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations,
and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first
parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat.
But as
the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and
the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too
inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when
their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns
few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting
to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen
from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake
which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner
as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue
increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives,
and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to,
it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each
part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form
to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point
out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might
by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors
in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent
reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange
will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they
will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the
unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness
of the governed.
Here then
is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary
by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the
design and end of government, viz., freedom and security. And however
our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however
prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the
simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.
I draw
my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no
art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any thing is, the less liable
it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with
this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution
of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which
it was erected is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the
least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject
to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is
easily demonstrated.
Absolute
governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage
with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head
from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are
not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution
of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years
together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies,
some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician
will advise a different medicine.
I know
it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if
we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English
constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient
tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.
First.-
The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly.-
The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Thirdly.-
The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose
virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two
first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in
a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of
the state.
To say
that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally
checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or
they are flat contradictions.
To say
that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things.
First.-
That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other
words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly.- That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are
either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.
But as
the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king
by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check
the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes
that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser
than him. A mere absurdity!
There is
something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first
excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act
in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts
him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it
thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying
each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers
have explained the English constitution thus; the king, say they, is one,
the people another; the peers are an house in behalf of the king; the
commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of
an house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly
arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will
always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of,
when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist,
or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will
be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot
inform the mind, for this explanation includes a previous question, viz.
How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and
always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise
people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet
the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to
exist.
But the
provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not
accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for as the greater
weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine
are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution
has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a
part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its
motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual;
the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in
speed is supplied by time.
That the
crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be
mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being
the giver of places pensions is self evident, wherefore, though we have
and wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we
at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession
of the key.
The prejudice
of Englishmen, in favor of their own government by king, lords, and commons,
arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are
undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but the will
of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with
this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it
is handed to the people under the most formidable shape of an act of parliament.
For the fate of Charles the First, hath only made kings more subtle not-
more just.
Wherefore,
laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favor of modes and forms,
the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the
people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is
not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.
An inquiry
into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at
this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition
of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some
leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves
while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who
is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife,
so any prepossession in favor of a rotten constitution of government will
disable us from discerning a good one.
OF MONARCHY
AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
MANKIND
being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only
be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich,
and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having
recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression
is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and
though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally
makes him too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater
distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned,
and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and
female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of
heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the
rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into,
and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.
In the
early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there
were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is
the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without
a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial
governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet
and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them,
which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
Government
by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom
the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention
the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens
paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath
improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious
is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of
his splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the
exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the
equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority
of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and
the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All
anti-monarchial parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over
in monarchial governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of
countries which have their governments yet to form. Render unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar's is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet
it is no support of monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were
without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three
thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till
the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form
of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed)
was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes.
Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under
that title but the Lords of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on
the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings he need not
wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove
of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of
heaven.
Monarchy
is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse
in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction
is worth attending to.
The children
of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them
with a small army, and victory, through the divine interposition, decided
in his favor. The Jews elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship
of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou
and thy son and thy son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent;
not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of
his soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule
over you, THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit;
Gideon doth not decline the honor but denieth their right to give it;
neither doth be compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks,
but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection
to their proper sovereign, the King of Heaven.
About one
hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error.
The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens,
is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold
of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some secular
concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying,
Behold thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king
to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot but observe
that their motives were bad, viz., that they might be like unto other
nations, i.e., the Heathen, whereas their true glory laid in being as
much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they
said, give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and
the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all
that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have
rejected me, THEN I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM.
According
to all the works which have done since the day; wherewith they brought
them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken
me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken
unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and show them the
manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e., not of any particular
king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was
so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time
and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel
told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king.
And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over
you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots,
and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this description
agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him
captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to
ear his ground and to read his harvest, and to make his instruments of
war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your daughters
to be confectionaries and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes
the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will
take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give
them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of
your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by
which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing
vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your
maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them
to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be
his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which
ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This
accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of
the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title,
or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David
takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's
own heart. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel,
and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like
all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us
and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no
purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail;
and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto
the Lord, and he shall sent thunder and rain (which then was a punishment,
being the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your
wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING
YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder
and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel
And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord
thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO
ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They
admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered
his protest against monarchial government is true, or the scripture is
false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of
kingcraft, as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public
in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.
To the
evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the
first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed
as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For
all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to
set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever,
and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries,
yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of
the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings,
is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently
turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.
Secondly,
as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed
upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away
the right of posterity, and though they might say, "We choose you
for our head," they could not, without manifest injustice to their
children, say, "that your children and your children's children shall
reign over ours for ever." Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural
compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government
of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have
ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils,
which when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear,
others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king
the plunder of the rest.
This is
supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honorable
origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark
covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, that we should
find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some
restless gang, whose savage manners of preeminence in subtlety obtained
him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power,
and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless to
purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could
have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such
a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and
unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary
succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter
of claim, but as something casual or complemental; but as few or no records
were extant in those days, and traditionary history stuffed with fables,
it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some
superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary
right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened,
or seemed to threaten on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new
one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many
at first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened,
as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience,
was afterwards claimed as a right.
England,
since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath
a much larger number of bad ones, yet no man in his senses can say that
their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French
bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king
of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very
paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However,
it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary
right, if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously
worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility,
nor disturb their devotion.
Yet I should
be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first? The question admits
but of three answers, viz., either by lot, by election, or by usurpation.
If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the
next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession
was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction there
was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any country was
by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to
say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act
of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family
of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine
of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam;
and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession
can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors
all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and
in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and
our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some
former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin
and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious
connection! Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
As to usurpation,
no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror
was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that
the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.
But it
is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which
concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have
the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the
wicked; and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men
who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow
insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned
by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the
world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true
interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the
most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another
evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject
to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency, acting
under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to betray
their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn out
with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both
these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper
successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.
The most
plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favor of hereditary succession,
is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it
would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed
upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings
and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest,
in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than
eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making
for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems
to stand on.
The contest
for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York and Lancaster,
laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles,
besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice
was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And
so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing
but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken
in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a
palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom
lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled
to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest side.
This contest
began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely extinguished
till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were united. Including a
period of 67 years, viz., from 1422 to 1489.
In short,
monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but
the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which the word
of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.
If we inquire
into the business of a king, we shall find that (in some countries they
have none) and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves
or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors
to tread the same idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight
of business civil and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel
in their request for a king, urged this plea "that he may judge us,
and go out before us and fight our battles." But in countries where
he is neither a judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled
to know what is his business.
The nearer
any government approaches to a republic, the less business there is for
a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government
of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present
state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence If the
crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed
up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican
part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as
monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without
understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part
of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz., the liberty
of choosing a house of commons from out of their own body- and it is easy
to see that when the republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. My is the
constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the
republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?
In England
a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which
in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the
ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand
sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is
one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned
ruffians that ever lived.
THOUGHTS
OF THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS
IN the
following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments,
and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader,
than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer
his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will
put on, or rather that he will not put off the true character of a man,
and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.
Volumes
have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America.
Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different motives,
and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period
of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; the
appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the
challenge.
It hath
been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho' an able minister was not
without his faults) that on his being attacked in the house of commons,
on the score, that his measures were only of a temporary kind, replied,
"they will fast my time." Should a thought so fatal and unmanly
possess the colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors will
be remembered by future generations with detestation.
The sun
never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city,
a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent- of at least one
eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year,
or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be
more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now.
Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor. The least
fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the
tender rind of a young oak; The wound will enlarge with the tree, and
posterity read it in full grown characters.
By referring
the matter from argument to arms, a new area for politics is struck; a
new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior
to the nineteenth of April, i.e., to the commencement of hostilities,
are like the almanacs of the last year; which, though proper then, are
superseded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates on
either side of the question then, terminated in one and the same point,
viz., a union with Great Britain; the only difference between the parties
was the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship;
but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second
hath withdrawn her influence.
As much
hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable
dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right, that
we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire into
some of the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always
will sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on Great Britain.
To examine that connection and dependance, on the principles of nature
and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what
we are to expect, if dependant.
I have
heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former
connection with Great Britain, that the same connection is necessary towards
her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can
be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert,
that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat;
or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for
the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer
roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much
more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce
by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will
always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.
But she
has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and defended
the continent at our expense as well as her own is admitted, and she would
have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz., the sake of trade and
dominion.
Alas! we
have been long led away by ancient prejudices and made large sacrifices
to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without
considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did
not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on
her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account,
and who will always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave
her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependance,
and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with
Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war, ought to warn us against connections.
It hath
lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation
to each other but through the parent country, i.e., that Pennsylvania
and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way
of England; this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relation
ship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if
I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be
our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
But Britain
is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct.
Even brutes do not devour their young; nor savages make war upon their
families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but
it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or
mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites,
with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous
weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country
of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers
off civil and religious liberty from every Part of Europe. Hither have
they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty
of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny
which drove the first emigrants from home pursues their descendants still.
In this
extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred
and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry our friendship on a
larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every European Christian, and
triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.
It is pleasant
to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the force of local prejudice,
as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town
in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his
fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be common)
and distinguish him by the name of neighbor; if he meet him but a few
miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him
by the name of townsman; if he travels out of the county, and meet him
in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls
him countryman; i.e., countyman; but if in their foreign excursions they
should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local remembrance
would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning,
all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are
countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with
the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions
of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited
for continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this
province, are of English descent. Wherefore, I reprobate the phrase of
parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish,
narrow and ungenerous.
But admitting
that we were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing.
Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and title:
And to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first
king of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman,
and half the peers of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore
by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France.
Much hath
been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in
conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption;
the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything;
for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants
to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Besides,
what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce,
and that, well attended to,will secure us the peace and friendship of
all Europe; because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a
free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of
gold and silver secure her from invaders.
I challenge
the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to show, a single advantage that
this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat
the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch
its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid
for buy them where we will.
But the
injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are without
number; and our duty to mankind I at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct
us to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependance
on Great Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European
wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise
seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint.
As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection
with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear
of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependance
on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics.
Europe
is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever
a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America
goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain. The next war may
not turn out like the Past, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation
now will be wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in that case,
would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or
natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice
of nature cries, 'tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty
hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the
authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven.
The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to
the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the force
of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if
the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in
future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.
The authority
of Great Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner
or later must have an end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure
by looking forward, under the painful and positive conviction, that what
he calls "the present constitution" is merely temporary. As
parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently
lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by
a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into
debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and
pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should
take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther
into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present
fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.
Though
I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined
to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation,
may be included within the following descriptions:
Interested
men, who are not to be trusted; weak men who cannot see; prejudiced men
who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better
of the European world than it deserves; and this last class by an ill-judged
deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent than
all the other three.
It is the
good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil
is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness
with which all American property is possessed. But let our imaginations
transport us for a few moments to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will
teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom
we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but
a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now no other alternative
than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of
their friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery
if they leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without
the hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they
would be exposed to the fury of both armies.
Men of
passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses of Britain, and,
still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, Come we shall be friends
again for all this. But examine the passions and feelings of mankind.
Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and
then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve
the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot
do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay
bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom
you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and being
formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time
fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you
can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt?
Hath you property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children
destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent
or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor?
If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you
have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy
the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your
rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit
of a sycophant.
This is
not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings
and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be
incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities
of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge,
but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately
some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer
America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present
winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected,
the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment
which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will,
that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.
It is repugnant
to reason, to the universal order of things, to all examples from the
former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject
to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so.
The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time compass a plan
short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year's security.
Reconciliation is was a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection,
and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never
can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so
deep."
Every quiet
method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected
with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that nothing flatters vanity,
or confirms obstinacy in kings more than repeated petitioning- and nothing
hath contributed more than that very measure to make the kings of Europe
absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore since nothing but blows
will do, for God's sake, let us come to a final separation, and not leave
the next generation to be cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning
names of parent and child.
To say,
they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we thought so
at the repeal of the stamp act, yet a year or two undeceived us; as well
me we may suppose that nations, which have been once defeated, will never
renew the quarrel.
As to government
matters, it is not in the powers of Britain to do this continent justice:
The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed
with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from
us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot
govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale
or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained
requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked
upon as folly and childishness- there was a time when it was proper, and
there is a proper time for it to cease.
Small islands
not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms
to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing
a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath
nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England
and America, with respect to each Other, reverses the common order of
nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe-
America to itself.
I am not
induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine
of separation and independence; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously
persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so; that
every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting
felicity,- that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking
back at a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered
this continent the glory of the earth.
As Britain
hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise, we may
be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the
continent, or any ways equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have
been already put to.
The object
contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the expense.
The removal of the North, or the whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy
the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience,
which would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the acts complained
of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take
up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while
to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay
for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just
estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker Hill price for law,
as for land. As I have always considered the independency of this continent,
as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid
progress of the continent to maturity, the event could not be far off.
Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth the while
to have disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless
we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an estate of
a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is
just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself,
before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775 (Massacre at Lexington), but
the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened,
sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that
with the pretended title of Father of his people, can unfeelingly hear
of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.
But admitting
that matters were now made up, what would be the event? I answer, the
ruin of the continent. And that for several reasons:
First.
The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will
have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he
hath shown himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered
such a thirst for arbitrary power, is he, or is he not, a proper man to
say to these colonies, "You shall make no laws but what I please?"
And is there any inhabitants in America so ignorant, as not to know, that
according to what is called the present constitution, that this continent
can make no laws but what the king gives leave to? and is there any man
so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will
suffer no Law to be made here, but such as suit his purpose? We may be
as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting
to laws made for us in England. After matters are make up (as it is called)
can there be any doubt but the whole power of the crown will be exerted,
to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going
forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously
petitioning. We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and
will he not hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring the matter to
one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power
to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an independent, for
independency means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws,
or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have,
shall tell us, "there shall be now laws but such as I like."
But the
king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make
no laws without his consent. in point of right and good order, there is
something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often
happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than
himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place
I decline this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the
absurdity of it, and only answer, that England being the king's residence,
and America not so, make quite another case. The king's negative here
is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there
he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into
as strong a state of defence as possible, and in America he would never
suffer such a bill to be passed.
America
is only a secondary object in the system of British politics- England
consults the good of this country, no farther than it answers her own
purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads her to suppress the growth
of ours in every case which doth not promote her advantage, or in the
least interfere with it. A pretty state we should soon be in under such
a second-hand government, considering what has happened! Men do not change
from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name; and in order to show
that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would
be policy in the kingdom at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake
of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in order, that
he may accomplish by craft and subtlety, in the long run, wha he cannot
do by force ans violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are
nearly related.
Secondly.
That as even the best terms, which we can expect to obtain, can amount
to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship,
which can last no longer than till the colonies come of age, so the general
face and state of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising.
Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country whose form
of government hangs but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on
the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitant
would lay hold of the interval, to dispose of their effects, and quit
the continent.
But the
most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independence, i.e.,
a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent
and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation
with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed
by a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more
fatal than all the malice of Britain.
Thousands
are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more will probably
suffer the same fate.) Those men have other feelings than us who have
nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed
is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain
submission. Besides, the general temper of the colonies, towards a British
government, will be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time,
they will care very little about her. And a government which cannot preserve
the peace, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money
for nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will
be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after
reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke
without thinking, that they dreaded independence, fearing that it would
produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread
from a patched up connection than from independence. I make the sufferers
case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my
property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible
of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider
myself bound thereby.
The colonies
have manifested such a spirit of good order and obedience to continental
government, as is sufficient to make every reasonable person easy and
happy on that head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears,
on any other grounds, that such as are truly childish and ridiculous,
viz., that one colony will be striving for superiority over another.
Where there
are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect equality affords
no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and we may say always)
in peace. Holland and Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic;
monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest: the crown
itself is a temptation to enterprising ruffians at home; and that degree
of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority swells into a
rupture with foreign powers, in instances where a republican government,
by being formed on more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake.
If there
is any true cause of fear respecting independence it is because no plan
is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out; wherefore, as an opening
into that business I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly
affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they
may be the means of giving rise to something better. Could the straggling
thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials
for wise and able men to improve to useful matter.
Let the
assemblies be annual, with a President only. The representation more equal.
Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the authority of a continental
congress.
Let each
colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each
district to send a proper number of delegates to congress, so that each
colony send at least thirty. The whole number in congress will be at least
three hundred ninety. Each congress to sit..... and to choose a president
by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken
from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which let the whole congress
choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province.
I the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting
that colony from which the president was taken in the former congress,
and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper
rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily
just, not less than three fifths of the congress to be called a majority.
He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as
this, would join Lucifer in his revolt.
But as
there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what manner, this business
must first arise, and as it seems most agreeable and consistent, that
it should come from some intermediate body between the governed and the
governors, that is between the Congress and the people, let a Continental
Conference be held, in the following manner, and for the following purpose:
A committee
of twenty-six members of Congress, viz., two for each colony. Two members
for each house of assembly, or provincial convention; and five representatives
of the people at large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each
province, for, and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified
voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the province
for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen
in two or three of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference,
thus assembled, will be united, the two grand principles of business,
knowledge and power. The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions,
by having had experience in national concerns, will be able and useful
counsellors, and the whole, being empowered by the people will have a
truly legal authority.
The conferring
members being met, let their business be to frame a Continental Charter,
or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna
Charta of England) fixing the number and manner of choosing members of
Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing
the line of business and jurisdiction between them: always remembering,
that our strength is continental, not provincial: Securing freedom and
property to all men, and above all things the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is
necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which, the said
conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen conformable
to the said charter, to be the legislators and governors of this continent
for the time being: Whose peace and happiness, may God preserve, Amen.
Should
any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some similar purpose,
I offer them the following extracts from that wise observer on governments
Dragonetti. "The science" says he, "of the politician consists
in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve
the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained
the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense."-
Dragonetti on Virtue and Rewards.
But where
says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above,
and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that
we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be
solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth
placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon,
by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that
in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is
law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to
be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown
at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the
people whose right it is.
A government
of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously reflects on
the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it
is in finitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a
cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such
an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massenello*
may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect
together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves
the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent
like a deluge. Should the government of America return again into the
hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a temptation
for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case,
what relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news the fatal business
might be done, and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under
the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence now, ye know
not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant
the seat of government.
(*Thomas
Anello, otherwise Massenello, a fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting
up his countrymen in the public market place, against the oppression of
the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt,
and in the space of a day became king.)
There are
thousands and tens of thousands; who would think it glorious to expel
from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred
up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guilt,
it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them. To talk of friendship
with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections,
(wounded through a thousand pores) instruct us to detest, is madness and
folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and
them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires,
the affection will increase, or that we shall agree better, when we have
ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever?
Ye that
tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the time that
is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither can
ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people
of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which
nature cannot forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well
can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive
the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these inextinguishable
feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image
in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The
social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated the earth, of
have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection.
The robber and the murderer, would often escape unpunished, did not the
injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice.
O ye that
love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant,
stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom
hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled
her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning
to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for
mankind.
OF THE
PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLECTIONS
I HAVE
never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath not confessed
his opinion, that a separation between the countries, would take place
one time or other. And there is no instance in which we have shown less
judgment, than in endeavoring to describe, what we call, the ripeness
or fitness of the Continent for independence.
As all
men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion of the time, let
us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general survey of things and endeavor
if possible, to find out the very time. But we need not go far, the inquiry
ceases at once, for the time hath found us. The general concurrence, the
glorious union of all things prove the fact.
It is not
in numbers but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present
numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. The Continent
hath, at this time, the largest body of armed and disciplined men of any
power under Heaven; and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in
which no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, who united
can accomplish the matter, and either more, or, less than this, might
be fatal in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as
to naval affairs, we cannot be insensible, that Britain would never suffer
an American man of war to be built while the continent remained in her
hands. Wherefore we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in that
branch, than we are now; but the truth is, we should be less so, because
the timber of the country is every day diminishing, and that which will
remain at last, will be far off and difficult to procure.
Were the
continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances
would be intolerable. The more sea port towns we had, the more should
we have both to defend and to loose. Our present numbers are so happily
proportioned to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of
trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a new trade.
Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this account will
serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity
with a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its
own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for
the sake of getting a few we acts repealed, and routing the present ministry
only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty;
because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their
backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy
a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a
peddling politician.
The debt
we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be but accomplished.
No nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt is a national bond;
and when it bears no interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed
with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling, for
which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a compensation
for her debt, she has a large navy; America is without a debt, and without
a navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English national debt, could
have a navy as large again. The navy of England is not worth, at this
time, more than three millions and a half sterling.
The first
and second editions of this pamphlet were published without the following
calculations, which are now given as a proof that the above estimation
of the navy is a just one. (See Entick's naval history, intro. page 56.)
The charge
of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing her with masts, yards,
sails and rigging, together with a proportion of eight months boatswain's
and carpenter's sea-stores, as calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to
the navy, is as follows:
| For a ship of 100 guns |
£35,553 |
| 90 |
£29,886 |
| 80 |
£23,638 |
| 70 |
£17,785 |
| 60 |
£14,197 |
| 50 |
£10,606 |
| 40 |
£7,558 |
| 30 |
£5,846 |
| 20 |
£3,710 |
And from
hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather, of the whole British
navy, which in the year 1757, when it was as its greatest glory consisted
of the following ships and guns:
| Ships |
Guns |
Cost of one |
Cost of all |
| 6 |
100 |
£35,533 |
£213,318 |
| 12 |
90 |
£29,886 |
£358,632 |
| 12 |
80 |
£23,638 |
£283,656 |
| 43 |
70 |
£17,785 |
£746,755 |
| 35 |
60 |
£14,197 |
£496,895 |
| 40 |
50 |
£10,606 |
£424,240 |
| 45 |
40 |
£7,758 |
£344,110 |
| 58 |
20 |
£3,710 |
£215,180 |
85 Sloops, bombs,
and fireships, one another |
£2,000 |
£170,000
|
|
|
| Cost |
£3,266,786
|
| Remains for guns |
£229,214
|
| Total |
£3,500,000
|
No country
on the globe is so happily situated, so internally capable of raising
a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce.
We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits
by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are
obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought to view the
building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory
of this country. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished
is worth more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy,
in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want
them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with
ready gold and silver.
In point
of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors; it is not
necessary that one-fourth part should be sailors. The privateer Terrible,
Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet
had not twenty sailors on board, though her complement of men was upwards
of two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient
number of active landsmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we
never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than now, while
our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and
shipwrights out of employ. Men of war of seventy and eighty guns were
built forty years ago in New England, and why not the same now? Ship building
is America's greatest pride, and in which, she will in time excel the
whole world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and consequently
excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of
barbarism; and no power in Europe, hath either such an extent or coast,
or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature hath given the one,
she has withheld the other; to America only hath she been liberal of both.
The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore,
her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only articles of
commerce.
In point
of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are not the little people
now, which we were sixty years ago; at that time we might have trusted
our property in the streets, or fields rather; and slept securely without
locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The case now is altered, and our
methods of defence ought to improve with our increase of property. A common
pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the
city of Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased;
and the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow,
in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the whole Continent,
and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which
demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.
Some, perhaps,
will say, that after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect
us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that she shall keep a navy in our
harbors for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the power which
hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend
us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves,
after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And
if her ships are not to be admitted into our harbors, I would ask, how
is she to protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles off can be of
little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all. Wherefore, if we must
hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for
another.
The English
list of ships of war is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them
are at any one time fit for service, numbers of them not in being; yet
their names are pompously continued in the list, if only a plank be left
of the ship: and not a fifth part, of such as are fit for service, can
be spared on any one station at one time. The East, and West Indies, Mediterranean,
Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large
demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we
have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have
talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and
for that reason, supposed that we must have one as large; which not being
instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised tories
to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth
than this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force
of Britain, she would be by far an over match for her; because, as we
neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be
employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two
to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to
sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance to return
in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain by her fleet, hath
a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade
to the West Indies, which, by laying in the neighborhood of the Continent,
is entirely at its mercy.
Some method
might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of peace, if we should
not judge it necessary to support a constant navy. If premiums were to
be given to merchants, to build and employ in their service, ships mounted
with twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion
to the loss of bulk to the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with
a few guard ships on constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and
that without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of
in England, of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting
in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defence is sound policy;
for when our strength and our riches, play into each other's hand, we
need fear no external enemy.
In almost
every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness,
so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other
countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannon we can cast
at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge
is hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and courage
hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is
it that we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she
is once admitted to the government of America again, this Continent will
not be worth living in. Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections
will be constantly happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who
will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience?
The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated
lands, shows the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves,
that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters.
Another
reason why the present time is preferable to all others, is, that the
fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet unoccupied, which instead
of being lavished by the king on his worthless dependents, may be hereafter
applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant
support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as
this.
The infant
state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is
an argument in favor of independence. We are sufficiently numerous, and
were we more so, we might be less united. It is a matter worthy of observation,
that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military
numbers, the ancients far exceeded the moderns: and the reason is evident,
for trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed
thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both
of patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently informs us,
that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in the non-age
of a nation. With the increase of commerce England hath lost its spirit.
The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued
insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the
less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear,
and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.
Youth is
the seed-time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It
might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the Continent into one
government half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned
by an increase of trade and population, would create confusion. Colony
would be against colony. Each being able might scorn each other's assistance:
and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions,
the wise would lament that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore,
the present time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which
is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune,
are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union
is marked with both these characters: we are young, and we have been distressed;
but our concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable area
for posterity to glory in.
The present
time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation
but once, viz., the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations
have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to
receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves.
First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles
or charter of government, should be formed first, and men delegated to
execute them afterwards: but from the errors of other nations, let us
learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity- to begin government
at the right end.
When William
the Conqueror subdued England he gave them law at the point of the sword;
and until we consent that the seat of government in America, be legally
and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of having it filled
by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same manner, and then,
where will be our freedom? where our property?
As to religion,
I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all
conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which
government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness
of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions
are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his
fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the
bane of all good society. For myself I fully and conscientiously believe,
that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of
religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian
kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions
would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look
on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same
family, differing only, in what is called their Christian names.
Earlier
in this work, I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety of a Continental
Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not plans) and in this place,
I take the liberty of rementioning the subject, by observing, that a charter
is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters
into, to support the right of every separate part, whether of religion,
personal freedom, or property, A firm bargain and a right reckoning make
long friends.
In a former
page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation;
and there is no political matter which more deserves our attention. A
small number of electors, or a small number of representatives, are equally
dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small,
but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this, I mention
the following; when the Associators petition was before the House of Assembly
of Pennsylvania; twenty-eight members only were present, all the Bucks
County members, being eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester
members done the same, this whole province had been governed by two counties
only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch
likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to gain an undue
authority over the delegates of that province, ought to warn the people
at large, how they trust power out of their own hands. A set of instructions
for the Delegates were put together, which in point of sense and business
would have dishonored a school-boy, and after being approved by a few,
a very few without doors, were carried into the house, and there passed
in behalf of the whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know, with
what ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures,
they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a trust.
Immediate
necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow
into oppressions. Expedience and right are different things. When the
calamities of America required a consultation, there was no method so
ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the several
Houses of Assembly for that purpose and the wisdom with which they have
proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is more than
probable that we shall never be without a Congress, every well-wisher
to good order, must own, that the mode for choosing members of that body,
deserves consideration. And I put it as a question to those, who make
a study of mankind, whether representation and election is not too great
a power for one and the same body of men to possess? When we are planning
for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
It is from
our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims, and are frequently surprised
into reason by their mistakes. Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury)
treated the petition of the New York Assembly with contempt, because that
House, he said, consisted but of twenty-six members, which trifling number,
he argued, could not with decency be put for the whole. We thank him for
his involuntary honesty.*
*Those who
would fully understand of what great consequence a large and equal representation
is to a state, should read Burgh's political Disquisitions.
To conclude:
However strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be
to think so, matters not, but many strong and striking reasons may be
given, to show, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as
an open and determined declaration for independence. Some of which are:
First.
It is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for some other powers,
not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as mediators, and bring about the
preliminaries of a peace: but while America calls herself the subject
of Great Britain, no power, however well disposed she may be, can offer
her mediation. Wherefore, in our present state we may quarrel on for ever.
Secondly.
It is unreasonable to suppose, that France or Spain will give us any kind
of assistance, if we mean only to make use of that assistance for the
purpose of repairing the breach, and strengthening the connection between
Britain and America; because, those powers would be sufferers by the consequences.
Thirdly.
While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain, we must, in the eye
of foreign nations, be considered as rebels. The precedent is somewhat
dangerous to their peace, for men to be in arms under the name of subjects;
we on the spot, can solve the paradox: but to unite resistance and subjection,
requires an idea much too refined for common understanding.
Fourthly.
Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched to foreign courts, setting
forth the miseries we have endured, and the peaceable methods we have
ineffectually used for redress; declaring, at the same time, that not
being able, any longer to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition
of the British court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking
off all connection with her; at the same time assuring all such courts
of our peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering
into trade with them. Such a memorial would produce more good effects
to this Continent, than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.
Under our
present denomination of British subjects we can neither be received nor
heard abroad: The custom of all courts is against us, and will be so,
until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations.
These proceedings
may at first appear strange and difficult; but, like all other steps which
we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and
agreeable; and, until an independence is declared, the continent will
feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business
from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes
it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.
APPENDIX
SINCE the
publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same
day on which it came out, the king's speech made its appearance in this
city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production,
it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture, or
a more necessary time. The bloody-mindedness of the one, show the necessity
of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And
the speech instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles
of independence.
Ceremony,
and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful
tendency, when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked
performances; wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows,
that the king's speech, as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved,
and still deserves, a general execration both by the congress and the
people. Yet as the domestic tranquility of a nation, depends greatly on
the chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is often
better, to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of
such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation,
on that guardian of our peace and safety. And perhaps, it is chiefly owing
to this prudent delicacy, that the king's speech, hath not before now,
suffered a public execution. The speech if it may be called one, is nothing
better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good,
and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering
up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this general massacre
of mankind, is one of the privileges, and the certain consequences of
kings; for as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they
are beings of our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods
of their creators. The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it
is not calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived
by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at
no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that
He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less
a savage than the king of Britain.
Sir John
Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical piece, fallaciously
called, The address of the people of ENGLAND to the inhabitants of America,
hath, perhaps from a vain supposition, that the people here were to be
frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given, (though very
unwisely on his part) the real character of the present one: "But,"
says this writer, "if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration,
which we do not complain of," (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's
at the repeal of the Stamp Act) "it is very unfair in you to withhold
them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were permitted to do anything."
This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask:
And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his
claim to rationality an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought
to be considered- as one, who hath, not only given up the proper dignity
of a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly
crawl through the world like a worm.
However,
it matters very little now, what the king of England either says or does;
he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled
nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by a steady and constitutional
spirit of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an universal hatred.
It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already
a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than
to be granting away her property, to support a power who is become a reproach
to the names of men and Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch over
the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of,
as well as ye, who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty,
if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European
corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation But leaving the moral
part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks
to the following heads:
First.
That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain. Secondly.
Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, reconciliation or independence?
with some occasional remarks.
In support
of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some
of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent; and whose sentiments,
on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident
position: For no nation in a state of foreign dependance, limited in its
commerce, and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever
arrive at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence
is; and although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled
in the history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what
she would be capable of arriving at, had she, as she ought to have, the
legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time, proudly
coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the
Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected.
It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by which England is
to be benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the
countries as independent of each other as France and Spain; because in
many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the independence
of this country on Britain or any other which is now the main and only
object worthy of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered
by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.
First.
Because it will come to that one time or other. Secondly. Because the
longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish.
I have
frequently amused myself both in public and private companies, with silently
remarking the spacious errors of those who speak without reflecting. And
among the many which I have heard, the following seems the most general,
viz., that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead
of now, the Continent would have been more able to have shaken off the
dependance. To which I reply, that our military ability at this time,
arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty
or fifty years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would
not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer left;
and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial
matters as the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely attended
to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all
others: The argument turns thus- at the conclusion of the last war, we
had experience, but wanted numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we
should have numbers, without experience; wherefore, the proper point of
time, must be some particular point between the two extremes, in which
a sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the latter
is obtained: And that point of time is the present time.
The reader
will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come under the head
I first set out with, and to which I again return by the following position,
viz.:
Should
affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain the governing and
sovereign power of America, (which as matters are now circumstanced, is
giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive ourselves of the very means
of sinking the debt we have or may contract. The value of the back lands
which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust
extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds sterling
per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania
currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions
yearly.
It is by
the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burden to any,
and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen, and in time, will
wholly support the yearly expense of government. It matters not how long
the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the discharge
of it, and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time being,
will be the continental trustees.
I proceed
now to the second head, viz. Which is the earliest and most practicable
plan, reconciliation or independence? with some occasional remarks.
He who
takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and
on that ground, I answer generally- That INDEPENDENCE being a SINGLE SIMPLE
LINE, contained within ourselves; and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly
perplexed and complicated, and in which, a treacherous capricious court
is to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.
The present
state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection.
Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than
what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled
concurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and
which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition,
is, legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without
a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending
for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed
before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man
is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude
is left at random, and feeling no fixed object before them, they pursue
such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such
thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act
as he pleases. The tories dared not to have assembled offensively, had
they known that their lives, by that act were forfeited to the laws of
the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between English soldiers
taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are
prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty the other
his head.
Notwithstanding
our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which
gives encouragement to dissensions. The Continental Belt is too loosely
buckled. And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to
do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither reconciliation
nor independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents
are got at their old game of dividing the continent, and there are not
wanting among us printers, who will be busy spreading specious falsehoods.
The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in
two of the New York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence
that there are men who want either judgment or honesty. It is easy getting
into holes and corners and talking of reconciliation: But do such men
seriously consider, how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may
prove, should the Continent divide thereon. Do they take within their
view, all the various orders of men whose situation and circumstances,
as well as their own, are to be considered therein. Do they put themselves
in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier,
who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill judged
moderation be suited to their own private situations only, regardless
of others, the event will convince them, that "they are reckoning
without their Host."
Put us,
says some, on the footing we were in the year 1763: To which I answer,
the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither
will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask,
as a reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless
court to be kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay, even the
present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being
violently obtained, or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our
redress? No going to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of crowns;
and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on
the footing of 1763, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on
the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same
state; our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private
losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged;
otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable period.
Such a request had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the
heart and soul of the continent- but now it is too late, "the Rubicon
is passed."
Besides
the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems
as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to human feelings,
as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The object, on either
side, doth not justify the ways and means; for the lives of men are too
valuable to be cast away on such trifles. It is the violence which is
done and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property by
an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously
qualifies the use of arms: And the instant, in which such a mode of defence
became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and
the independency of America should have been considered, as dating its
area from, and published by, the first musket that was fired against her.
This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended
by ambition; but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies
were not the authors.
I shall
conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well intended hints,
We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways by which an independency
may hereafter be effected; and that one of those three, will one day or
other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in
congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that
our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men;
virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual.
Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means, we
have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the
noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our
power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present,
hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a
new world is at hand, and a race of men perhaps as numerous as all Europe
contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a
few months. The reflection is awful- and in this point of view, how trifling,
how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavillings, of a few weak or interested
men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.
Should
we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an independence
be hereafter effected by any other means, we must charge the consequence
to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow and prejudiced souls, are
habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or reflecting.
There are reasons to be given in support of Independence, which men should
rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now
to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but, anxious to
accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather
that it is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity.
Even the tories (if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men,
be the most solicitous to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees
at first, protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and well established
form of government, will be the only certain means of continuing it securely
to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought
to have prudence enough to wish for independence.
In short,
independence is the only bond that can tie and keep us together. We shall
then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes
of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a
proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude,
that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the American
states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates, "rebellious
subjects," for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that
encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to
prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld
our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative,
by independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open
the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part of England will be still
with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And
if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to.
On these
grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute
the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet, it is
a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that
the party in favor of it are too numerous to be opposed. Wherefore, instead
of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each
of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite
in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness
every former dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and
let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open
and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND
and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.
EPISTLE
TO QUAKERS
To the
Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers,
or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing a late piece, entitled
"THE ANCIENT TESTIMONY and PRINCIPLES of the people called QUAKERS
renewed with respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT, and Touching the COMMOTIONS
now prevailing in these and other parts of AMERICA, addressed to the PEOPLE
IN GENERAL."
THE writer
of this is one of those few, who never dishonors religion either by ridiculing,
or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are
all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle
is not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political
body, dabbling in matters, which the professed quietude of your Principles
instruct you not to meddle with.
As you
have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the place
of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to
be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting
himself in the place of all those who approve the very writings and principles,
against which your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen their singular
situation, in order that you might discover in him, that presumption of
character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you have
any claim or title to Political Representation.
When men
have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they stumble and
fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have managed your
testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not your proper
walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless,
a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn
therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.
The two
first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give you credit for,
and expect the same civility from you, because the love and desire of
peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well as the
religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this ground, as men
laboring to establish an Independent Constitution of our own, do we exceed
all others in our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are
tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in
a final separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing
an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of
the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor,
to separate and dissolve a connection which hath already filled our land
with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal
cause of future mischiefs to both countries.
We fight
neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are
not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe
for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our
own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us.
We view our enemies in the characters of highwaymen and housebreakers,
and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law; are obliged to punish
them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where
you have before now, applied the halter. Perhaps we feel for the ruined
and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the continent, and with
a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your
bosoms. But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your
Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put the bigot in the
place of the Christian.
O ye partial
ministers of your own acknowledged principles! If the bearing arms be
sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference
between wilful attack and unavoidable defence.
Wherefore,
if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political
hobby-horse of your religion, convince the world thereof, by proclaiming
your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear ARMS. Give us proof
of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James's, to the commanders in
chief at Boston, to the admirals and captains who are practically ravaging
our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority
under HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay*
ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the royal tyrant
of his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial
invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but like faithful
ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted,
neither endeavor to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are
bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not
complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to
be and are NOT Quakers.
*"Thou
hast tasted of prosperity and adversity; thou knowest what it is to be
banished thy native country, to be overruled as well as to rule, and set
upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast reason to know now hateful
the oppressor is both to God and man. If after all these warnings and
advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but
forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself to
follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy condemnation. Against
which snare, as well as the temptation of those who may or do feed thee,
and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will
be, to apply thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience
and which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at
ease in thy sins."- Barclay's Address to Charles II.
Alas! it
seems by the particular tendency of some part of your Testimony, and other
parts of your conduct, as if all sin was reduced to, and comprehended
in the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to
us, to have mistaken party for conscience, because the general tenor of
your actions wants uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to
give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because we see them made
by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against
the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step
as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.
The quotation
which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony,
that, "when a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies
to be at peace with him;" is very unwisely chosen on your part; because
it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways (whom ye are so desirous of
supporting) do not please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.
I now proceed
to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which all the foregoing
seems only an introduction, viz:
"It
hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called to profess
the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences unto this day,
that the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is God's peculiar
prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our
business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy-bodies
above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn
any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good
of all men: that we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all goodliness
and honesty; under the government which God is pleased to set over us."
If these are really your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do
ye not leave that, which ye call God's work, to be managed by himself?
These very principles instruct you to wait with patience and humility,
for the event of all public measures, and to receive that event as the
divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political
Testimony if you fully believe what it contains? And the very publishing
it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not
virtue enough to practice what ye believe.
The principles
of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the quiet and inoffensive
subject of any, and every government which is set over him. And if the
setting up and putting down of kings and governments is God's peculiar
prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore,
the principle itself leads you to approve of every thing, which ever happened,
or may happen to kings as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you.
Charles, then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present proud
imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers
of the Testimony, are bound by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the
fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments
brought about by any other means than such as are common and human; and
such as we are now using. Even the dispersing of the Jews, though foretold
by our Savior, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the
means on one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait
the issue in silence; and unless you can produce divine authority, to
prove, that the Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at
the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from every
part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent
of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain; unless I say, ye can show
this, how can ye, on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting
and stirring up of the people "firmly to unite in the abhorrence
of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire and design to
break off the happy connection we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom
of Great Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king,
and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him." What a
slap in the face is here! the men, who, in the very paragraph before,
have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal
of kings and governments, into the hands of God, are now recalling their
principles, and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible,
that the conclusion, which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow
from the doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be
seen; the absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could
only have been made by those, whose understandings were darkened by the
narrow and crabby spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are not
to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional
and fractional part thereof.
Here ends
the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no man to abhor,
as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin
the following remark; "That the setting up and putting down of kings,"
most certainly mean, the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the
making him no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in
the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to
make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore your
testimony in whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your
judgment, and for many other reasons had better have been let alone than
published.
First.
Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of religion whatever, and
is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party in political disputes.
Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow the
publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and approvers
thereof. Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental
harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and charitable
donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of which,
is of the utmost consequence to us all.
And here,
without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that
as men and Christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every
civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing
it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling
religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant
of America.
-THE
END-
|